The plot thickens regarding the provenance of Zimmerman’s “original painting”

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Good afternoon:

I spent the morning attempting to identify the photographer who produced the stock image of the American flag that George Zimmerman apparently used to produce his “original painting” that he is offering for sale on ebay. I use the word “apparently” because it looks like he downloaded the stock photo from Flickr, photoshopped it by adding the words and changing the dimensions and colors, projected the image onto a canvass and painted the image rather like painting by numbers.

If you have any doubt about how he did it and whether he significantly changed the original, check out this video.

The image bears Getty’s watermark to prevent people from downloading the it and reselling it as their own work. Upon purchasing the image, the purchaser can download it without the watermark.

The licensed or authorized use of the photograph is “royalty free,” which means that the purchaser can resell the image commercially after purchasing it from the seller.

This does not mean that it goes into the public domain where anyone can use it for any purpose without attribution.

Pursuant to the Berne Convention, Manuela Krause retains the copyright and moral right to be credited as the photographer who created the image. Neither Getty nor anyone who purchases the image from Getty can claim to have created the photograph. Any person or organization who does claim to have created it would violate her copyright. Therefore, Manuela Krause has a potential copyright infringement claim against Zimmerman, assuming she can prove that he copied her image.

No information is displayed indicating when the image was created, by whom or when they acquired it. The studio identifies the image as a stock photo of an American flag, claims they have the copyright, and identifies the image with this identification number: 74692756.

Shutterstock is also selling the right to use the image commercially without having to pay a royalty fee.

I do not know when, where, or under what circumstances the Awen Art Studio acquired the photograph.

The Flickr Photo

Looks like Hoch Sollst Du Leben may not be a real person. His name in German means: High Thou Shalt Live.

Hoch Sollst Du Leben posted his “copyrighted” image in 2006, three years before Awen Art Studio registered at Shutterstock.

Removing the site, instead of calling a press conference and expressing indignant outrage, suggests that de Leben may not be on the up and up. I doubt he created the image, but cannot prove where or how he obtained it. He may have sold the image on a royalty free basis to any number of people or organizations, including the Awen Art Studio, but neither he nor any subsequent purchaser can legitimately claim to own the copyright, which remains with Manuela Krause.

Anyone, including George Zimmerman, could have downloaded the image for free from Flickr because the image was not protected by a watermark.

Conclusions

Since the image was protected by a watermark at Getty and Shutterstock, I doubt Zimmerman obtained it from either source, unless he paid for it.

I regard that as a theoretical but improbable possibility.

I suspect, but lack sufficient evidence to prove that GZ obtained the image for free by copying it from Flickr. I cannot eliminate the possibility that he projected a watermarked image onto a canvas and painted over the watermark, but regard that possibility as unlikely.

I believe EarlG at Democratic Underground has demonstrated the process that George Zimmerman used to create his “original painting.”

I also believe that he fraudulently misrepresented that he created it. A person cannot take another person’s work, tweak it a bit, and legitimately claim that they created it. In order to legitimately claim they created the work, they would have to change it in some significant manner. I do not believe the process that EarlG described meets that standard.

Finally, we cannot forget that the value of his “original painting” is based on his claim that he created it. If John Smith were offering it for sale at an ebay auction, I doubt it would sell for more than $20.

As I’ve said all along, I believe Zimmerman’s effort to sell his “original painting” is an attempt to commit criminal fraud and not protected by the fair-use exception to copyright law.

This whole twitter account of his is creepy as hell. Unreal. Takes photo of FL license plate of photographer and posts it on twitter. Someone has tweeted at him blaming Prof as the one who started all the hate. He responded to it asking “who’s that?”

TMZ has a video of Georgie and Samantha leaving courthouse. I guess their inquiring about getting their guns back. What makes me ill in this video is the way the paps are treating them like they are celebrities! Wow! Only in America. Oh and georgie acts like they are bothering him when we know he is LOVING IT! He also goes to open the door for his Partner in Crime . What a sociopathic, manipulative, lying Gentleman LOL, Georgies really knows how to put on a performance. He has had a lot of practice

That’s all he ever has done with his life was put on performances. And not one of those performances was ever ready for prime time. That’s the secret of the nobody in a racist society; he can be “somebody” in relation to the despised class so he imagines he’s a somebody and it goes to his head.

Basically, a racist has delusions of adequacy. Fogen is a perfect example. The female by his side plays that same game with him for the contact high SHE gets from it.

Actually, this whole auction appears to be totally bizarre. There are 96 bids from 24 bidders.
One person is responsible for 37 bids.
Nine of those bids were for the exact same amount, and they were placed within moments of each other.
No bids have been placed today.
Yet, if you look at the mainstream media, you would think there was an absolute frenzy going on. Crazy.

“Nine of those bids were for the exact same amount, and they were placed within moments of each other.”

– – – – – – – – –

that would be part of the autobid system. if bidder A put in your max bid and bidder B comes along with a bid between current price and bidder A’s max, autobid will keep increasing that bid up to the max. this would not take any action on bidder A’s part.

will agree that the entire bid process looks suspect to an experienced seller. of course, i have never sold any ‘fine art’ before so it could be different in the upper echelons of the art world 😛

as an experienced ebay seller, what is obvious is that there are multiple accounts with 0-3 transactions who seem to be submitting schill bids to drive up the price. this violates ebay policy and i know that they, too, have been contacted.

colin — congrats on your marriage! i have been overwhelmed taking care of my 76 year old mom who fell and broke a few bones, so have not had my usual amount of innerwebz goof off time.

i have had 10 hours off from all day/every day care in 2 weeks, but am making my brothers pull their weight for a long weekend. yeee haw! i’m hoping i can conjure up something that looks like a festive holiday for my family … we’ll see how far i get.

IMO this is not the first time Georgie has used this flag. Back when he created TheRealGeorgeZimmerman.con, the first version [the one O’Migraine yanked], he used this flag as the background of each page. Check out the “My Race” page for the best view.

The original always holds copyright to the parts that are original. The derivative author only can claim copyright to the parts that are derivative, not the parts that are original. The words written on the piece in type set are NOT his, the color blue cannot be claimed as his invention, the shadowing is through a filter, Zimmerman cannot claim any single part of this as his at all (and this replica might only be able to claim the text if it is actually original).

Of course, this assumes that the original photographer allows derivatives or commercial use work. If the copyright is “All Rights Reserved” or carries some statement that derivatives are not allowed to be made, then the copyright stays with the original owner.

Manuela Krause also has the image available here: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-21425733-american-flag-stars-and-stripes.php?st=8e320a1 She uploaded it for sale in 2012. Judging by her other images, I’m not certain she took the image. It seems to be out of character with her other photography images. She calls it a close up of the American Flag. Palatinus had a whole entire write up on the 2006 image about why he photographed it, what it mean to him, almost a poetic description.

Who is to say where GZ got it and what license he used? That will be another question that may take time and discovery to answer.

There’s a possibility that some as yet unidentified person may have created the image.

I hope that the person who created it steps forward and claims it, although that may not be necessary in order to establish that George Zimmerman did not create that ridiculous thing he claims to be his original painting. Zynthesis’s video @ liveleak.com proves that.

It is very hard to prove, and sales sites more or less have to take the submitter’s word for it. If I give Getty or Shutterstock 50 images to sell for me and say they are my own work, how are they to know otherwise? And how will you prove they were actually yours?

It was easier in film days, as you might have the negatives and I wouldn’t.

The flag image in question is available on several sites, supposedly originating from Awen Art Studio, as a vector image, made to be easily manipulated with vector editing programs. There is even a desktop wallpaper version of it. NONE of them for free. We don’t know if either of the supposed photographers have any connection with this studio. They may have.

I don’t believe it’s the Getty image. That is very flat and shiny, and looks cropped compared to the Shuttershock one and to GZ’s version — the red stripe area to the right is a lot smaller on the Getty one.

The one GZ had on his begsite has enough detail to show the stitching, and the stars appear raised, ie they are obviously appliqued to their background. The Getty one doesn’t even look like a photo, so it has been ‘shopped already. Maybe it’s just a matter of resolution?

Nevermind, I just found it. Earl G states it (I had not seen the “over a decade ago” statement prior to this morning) but, I can find no proof that the image is that old. It may be, but I can’t find any proof of it. I hope someone saved images or a receipt or something.

If the image is indeed Manuela Krause’s image, than so long as George Zimmerman purchased a commercial license from Getty, he is fully within his rights to use the image, although stating it is original and not giving any credit to Manuela Krause should be a big no-no!

I was aware of the DU imprints, but did not know what date they were imprinted. If the date of 10 years ago is proven correct, then Krause is probably the photographer. Where is the proof that this image is 10 years old? May I ask?

If the image is indeed Manuela Krause’s image, than so long as George Zimmerman purchased a commercial license from Getty, he is fully within his rights to use the image, although stating it is original and not giving any credit to Manuela Krause should be a big no-no!

I was aware of the DU imprints, but did not know what date they were imprinted. If the date of 10 years ago is proven correct, then Krause is probably the photographer. Where is the proof that this image is 10 years old? May I ask?

I am going on the basis of what EarlG said and my memory. I think I saw those t-shirts in the run-up to the national election in 2004 (Kerry v. Bush).

Color me pessimistic, but the courts will back him. Even if they have to make shit up. In fact, if GZ showed up at her door, and shot her in the face, or countersued her, for having the utter temerity to try to protect her own work? Courts would back him. Hey, poor, poor, George was only standing his ground, right?

While there are some blurred lines on copyright ownership with new media, the ownership of a photograph is pretty cut and dried. Whoever took the photograph holds the copyright. There may be a dispute that needs to be settled about who actually took the photograph, but, the rightful copyright is with the photographer. The courts can’t really manipulate that decision if the photographer comes forward with some verifiable proof.

I believe, as well, that the courts will now back Fogen in whatever he does. He knows it. What happens in the courts is once they do corrupt things for someone and create a monster, they then protect themselves (and whoever started the “protect him no matter what” crusade) by NEVER ruling against him in any way, shape or form. This crosses jurisdictions, kinds of courts (federal, state, bankruptcy, civil, criminal, etc.) and so forth. The criminals who get this going for themselves not only know it but also know how to use it. They “have something” on somebody who can’t be rolled. Probably a judge or two. Either that, or a prosecutor in an influential county.

I say this partly because of my own experience. I have been studying my case for a little over a year now, hope to get the bar complaint in soon, but it takes the breath away, the lengths the lawyers, including my own lawyer, and the courts will go, to back corruption. Destruction of evidence, inventing other evidence, manipulating and changing the docket, modifying recorded evidence, suborning perjury. It makes me wonder what they don’t actually do. Mind-blowing.

Also, I talked to someone on Live Chat on Getty Images yesterday who acknowledged there was a question on copyright and was still asking me if I would like to purchase. I merely contacted them to find out if they had a date of upload/copyright since Joseph J. Palatinus uploaded his in 2006 (and until yesterday when he took it down, there were comments from 2006 about the image). Getty would not divulge any date information to me, but despite knowing someone informed them of copyright violation, they still seemed more than happy to sell it to me. On that note, Getty Images was recently found guilty in a copyright infringement case, along with a second publication and now owes a large chunk of money to the original photographer of the images in that case. (see Google Search on Daniel Morel, Haitian photographer who won a lawsuit against Getty Images and Agence France-Presse.

Although you haven’t explicitly stated that Palatinus created the image, you appear to believe that he did.

I believe Manuela Krause created the image and sold it to Getty Images on a royalty free basis more than 10 years ago because Democratic Underground purchased her image from Getty Images more than 10 years ago and placed it on T-shirts.

Getty Images identifies her as the person who created the image and retains the copyright.

If you had done a bit more research on Hoch Sollst Du Leben, you would find out he does have a name, and an email address. I’ve sent him emails and he has removed the image from his site, probably to protect it, and hopefully he is seeking legal counsel. His name is Joseph J. Palatinus.

Thanks, I did not know that. A couple of days ago, I left a message for him at flickr advising him that GZ had used his image of the flag to produce what GZ calls his “original Painting” and recommended he look into it.

I don’t have the time to chase down aliases.

At the time, I did not know about Manuela Krause, Getty Images and Democratic Underground.

I have no idea how he obtained the image, but it certainly appears to be identical to her image.

If it is the same image, and he obtained it legitimately, he can resell it. However, he cannot legitimately claim to own the copyright because it remains with the person who created it.

Since the image was not protected by a watermark, GZ could have downloaded it from flickr and used it to create his “original” masterpiece.

Whether GZ obtained it from flickr or somewhere else, remains unknown, but he clearly used Krause’s image.

Or Palatinus’ image. Who is to say Palatinus is not the original photographer? His copyright stated “All Rights Reserved”. Having a watermark from Getty does not override the original copyright if Palatinus took the photograph.

Yes, I agree there is a possibility that Palatinus could have created the image. IIRC, he posted it at flickr in 2006, which is several years after Democratic Underground purchased it from Getty Images and used it on t-shirts they distributed to get out the vote in the national election, probably 2004.

So, there is a timing problem.

This does not mean that he could not have created the image before Manuela Krause sold it to Getty Images, but I regard that possibility as unlikely because Democratic Underground used it in a very public way that I suspect he would have noticed and inquired about. Evidently, that did not happen.

Since you know how to contact him, you should consider asking him to post a comment here.

Under the circumstances, however, the wiser move for him might be to contact counsel.

Here’s where I’m coming from. Regardless who created the image, George Zimmerman clearly did not do it and has no right to claim that he did.

He didn’t have to projected on the canvas but just upload it to a number of places that does that. Some graphic programs come with iPads, pcs, etc. and have a button to pick the ‘canvas’ some 1st time for free, minus shipping. I really believe he did this for the media attention, though. And for many to keep talking about it. He and his cohort treepers. It doesn’t make sense, it’s so crude, ugly and disgusting plus he still has his beg site, so getting one side against the other will help donations to flow in again…’just to make the lefties crazy’

Since there is absolutely no doubt that this is not an original painting and eBay has been apprised of that fact, why hasn’t the “painting” been removed from the auction or its description edited to reflect the truth? Does eBay have any responsibility here?

I believe he did this for the media attention too, and his supporters are saying the possible copyright violation is not a problem because he is using it Fair Use. LOL Apparently these people didn’t read up on Fair Use. Commercial Sale of an image is NOT Fair Use and does nothing to benefit or educate society.

“Auction and Retail Schemes. According to data from law enforcement and consumer protection organizations,fraudulent schemes appearing on online auction websites are among the most frequently reported form of mass-marketing fraud. These schemes, and similar schemes involving online retail sites, typically purport to offer high-value items – ranging from high-priced watches to computers to collectibles- that are likely to attract many consumers. These schemes induce their victims to send money for the promised items, but then deliver nothing or only an item far less valuable than what was promised (e.g., counterfeit or altered goods). In some cases, fraudsters email prospective victims to say that they have additional quantities of the items that had been up for auction, but persuade them to go to other websites that do not offer the consumer protections found on legitimate auction sites.”

As far as copyrights go, George, by virtue of his very high profile, may have unearthed other people infringing this design.

Think about this two sides,
If this *art* sells at any price, Cheorge may have found a niche market as the Thomas Kincaid in the racist, sovereign citizen, gun nut group that’s elevated him to hero status.

There’s no limit to the number of gegaws he could produce for them…coffee mugs, key chains, cell phone cases, decorated pistol grips and rifle stocks & scopes, watchman Cheorge lawn jockey , wall clocks with his image on the face, signed xmas ornaments…hell, even a blanket with his image much like those with la virgin de Guadalupe that are sold in Mexico. Think BIG, cheorge is going to continue grifting his way through life.

Now, also, inflatable Samantha dolls. When you jiggle them, they say, in soft girly Florida tones, “awwwww, please take the target off Georgie-Porjie’s bayack, puh-leeeez?” Only three payments of $19.99 each. But wait …